Topic: Social Class: Royalty
Started by: Sir Mathodius Black
Started on: 5/28/2004
Board: The Riddle of Steel
On 5/28/2004 at 2:44am, Sir Mathodius Black wrote:
Social Class: Royalty
In an upcoming game my character will be a warrior prince, and after reviewing the description of landed nobility, it does not seem fit for "Royalty" as much as for minor lords. What adjustments, if any, do you think i should make on the social class? Maybe a new social class could be made somehow, reflecting someone of royal blood such as a prince, princess ect.
Thanks,
SMB
On 5/28/2004 at 4:02am, James Buchanan wrote:
RE: Social Class: Royalty
I am thinking of implemementing it as a merit
Royalty (Minor) - You are either royalty in exile or have a very tenuous claim to the throne.
Royalty (Major) - You are either the ruler of a small nation, or with a close claim to a throne in a large one. You must be of the A social class to take this merit.
-James
On 5/28/2004 at 4:26am, Sir Mathodius Black wrote:
RE: Social Class: Royalty
Hmm...thats not bad. But what about the issue of wealth, because the ruler of a small nation would certainly have more than 250 gold pieces at his disposal, and certainly more servants, guards, and power than was outlined in the landed nobility section. Im at a bit of a loss as far as making the power accurately reflect the station of royalty but assigning an appropriate cost for such an advantage.
On 5/28/2004 at 5:27am, James Buchanan wrote:
RE: Social Class: Royalty
So, make it amplify the wealth somehow.
The cost of an A soc class preference *and* a major merit is a substantial one.
-James
[Edit: Also, consider how much fun someone who is constantly dealing with the business of running a kingdom would be, if you want to go for the warrior prince angle. Then with my suggestions, make him landed nobility, which is his "allowance" until he assumes the throne. If he already rules, then make it a fairly small principality, something like montenegro, or luxembourg, which is barely more than a large noble's land. This means that you don't wonkify things too much arbitarily.]
On 5/28/2004 at 10:51am, RexGator wrote:
RE: Social Class: Royalty
Or how about being the King and being dead broke. Maybe your father sqaundered the Royal Treasury on elaborate parties, tournaments and whimsies (is that even a word?)
That 250 Gold is all that you have left from the original ancestral estate. Imagine "you are the King of Freedonia, you are leader of apowerful and proud nation. Your creditors are howling at your doorstep..."
Seems like it could present some interesting opportunities for the PC.
1. Do you borrow money from shady money lenders? If so what do they want?
2. Do you hand over powerful Dukedoms to ambitous rivals in return for cold hard cash?
3. Do you raise taxes and end up dealing with rising discontent?
4. Or do you go off on a crusade to liberate some holy (and financially lucrative) territory?
On 5/29/2004 at 2:29am, James Buchanan wrote:
RE: Social Class: Royalty
Those are some good ideas Rex.
I mean, you could easily also just say that despite the fact that he commands great wealth in total, most of it is needed by stewards to actually run the kingdom.
I mean, depending on what time you look at, many kings were just one of the more powerful landed nobility in a given country.
-James
On 5/30/2004 at 5:36am, Ian.Plumb wrote:
RE: Social Class: Royalty
Hi,
Assuming for a moment that the game was being set within the context of mid 14th century France rather than Weyrth...
RexGator wrote: Or how about being the King and being dead broke. Maybe your father squandered the Royal Treasury on elaborate parties, tournaments and whimsies (is that even a word?)
That 250 Gold is all that you have left from the original ancestral estate. Imagine "you are the King of Freedonia, you are leader of apowerful and proud nation. Your creditors are howling at your doorstep..."
No matter where you are in the noble pecking order the maintenance of your position (let alone improving your position) is dependent on displays of largesse. With displays of largesse comes prestige and the respect of your peers. Being unwilling or unable to display largesse is a failing. It indicates a lack of cash, which may well be interpreted by neighbours as lacking the cash to raise troops to defend the domain.
From what I have read on the medieval economy nobody thought that pooling large amounts of cash was a sensible course of action unless that was the business they were in (bankers and money changers). Instead money was used to maintain and extend the domain. For a nobleman or the church this would revolve around the purchase of income streams (generally speaking the rights to something, for instance the right to administer justice in an area).
Comparing a nobleman to a member of the rising city-based middle class for a moment: the nobleman controls a domain with tenants that generate a rental income stream. Various resources within the domain may generate income streams (wood felling, fishing rights, road/river tolls, and so on). In essence these are also rental returns -- someone pays the nobleman for the right to use the nobleman's resources. The nobleman may purchase the right to low and even high justice. This gives the nobleman access to the income stream from the fines levied in the court by the judge. As long as the domain is above a certain size the income streams generated will provide sufficient income to maintain the domain. However, it is difficult to achieve growth. In the Lyonnais it would not be uncommon for the non-noble patricians of the city to have more personal and disposable wealth than the vast majority of the nobility of the county.
RexGator wrote: 1. Do you borrow money from shady money lenders? If so what do they want?
Usury is denounced by the church and so it is generally left to foreigners to provide the banking service. Usury being problematic didn't stop it from happening, of course, only that it carried risk for both sides.
RexGator wrote: 2. Do you hand over powerful Dukedoms to ambitous rivals in return for cold hard cash?
The king doesn't have the right to handover land unless it is his own. This is a catch-22 situation as the more land handed over from his own domain the less personal power (which translates directly to independence) the king is able to maintain. On the other hand ennobling wealthy citizens in exchange for cash and selling franchises to towns/cities were common approaches to the perennial cash shortage.
RexGator wrote: 4. Or do you go off on a crusade to liberate some holy (and financially lucrative) territory?
As in the 4th Crusade? Lots of interesting moral ambiguity there. Lots of fun to play...
Cheers,
On 5/30/2004 at 8:18am, Tash wrote:
RE: Social Class: Royalty
When I was taking History of Western Europe the thesis of one of my main papers for the course was that the lack of a means to generate and retain large quantities of currency was the fundemental reason for the downfall of nearly every major European monarchy. Essentially, as Ian points out, the nobility were land wealthy but cash poor. As societies shifted to become more mercantile and less agrarian land no longer equated directly to power, and in fact became more of a hinderance (owning land means one is required to pay money to maintain the land). With their cash flows more or less fixed the landed nobiltiy were not in a position to take advantage of new economic opportunities (exploration, manufacture, etc.) and were thus overtaken by the new "middle class", who quickly became more wealthy and powerful than many of the nobels in their respective countries.